- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 4,724
IN section 'K' of the rule book online.
IMPBA Rule Change
- Thread starter Russ Williamson
- Start date
Help Support Intlwaters:
I ran a twin and I have to say that mine was way too loud. It was impossible to even tell if your engines were running in the pit, because the overall noise level was too high. My personal opinion is that we have gone the wrong way with the latest rule. I'd like to see it go to 88-92db, and have some measurement method to lower the levels in the pit area as well as on the course. My muffler cans are a joke. I agree that the "muffler required" rule doesn't work, but I sure would like the db level to go to 90 or so if we do away with it.Paul Pachmayer said:
Brian Schymik
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 773
As everyone knows, the noise situation is a work in progress. It is not and has not ever meant to be, the end point for the rule. It will grow and change.
The history of the rule is quite rocky. Don't you all remember how difficult it was to convince people of the need for this in the first place? It took literally years to get this voted in! At first noone wanted mufflers, then noone wanted Db levels. Everyone had, and still has, their own opinion of the situation. It is difficult to merge those opinions to make a good rule, but please realize that there is no conspiracy to slip some rule in under your noses. There are 14 people on the Board, also with their own opinions, who have had to compromise to figure out something that would appease most of us.
It has always been the intent of IMPBA to decrease the db level. It has also been the intent to do this gradually, so everyone could adapt and comply with the situation.
The previously stated intended goal is 92 db. We can get there as soon as the membership wants to.
If we do that, it is obvious that the " muffler rule" could be removed. In actual practice, it will be easier if the muffler rule is gone, because there will be fewer problems "tech"ing the boats and fewer gripes and threats to protest. There will be only one rule to comply with and fewer loopholes.
The reason that the final rule came in at 25 ft, is that some ponds did not have 50 ft of shore before they ran into obstacles, trees, cliffs, brush, etc, that made it impossible to get 50 ft away from the shoreline.
Mark Bullard's concerns that some courses are closer to shore than others is very valid, but the real answer is, if you are so close to the decibel cutoff at any pond, and if 25 vs 50 ft REALLY puts you over the top, then you are too loud and you really need to make it quieter anyway. If you are running at 94 now, then you have some work to do. The 92 limit is right around the corner. I hope.
Brian Schymik
D14 Director
The history of the rule is quite rocky. Don't you all remember how difficult it was to convince people of the need for this in the first place? It took literally years to get this voted in! At first noone wanted mufflers, then noone wanted Db levels. Everyone had, and still has, their own opinion of the situation. It is difficult to merge those opinions to make a good rule, but please realize that there is no conspiracy to slip some rule in under your noses. There are 14 people on the Board, also with their own opinions, who have had to compromise to figure out something that would appease most of us.
It has always been the intent of IMPBA to decrease the db level. It has also been the intent to do this gradually, so everyone could adapt and comply with the situation.
The previously stated intended goal is 92 db. We can get there as soon as the membership wants to.
If we do that, it is obvious that the " muffler rule" could be removed. In actual practice, it will be easier if the muffler rule is gone, because there will be fewer problems "tech"ing the boats and fewer gripes and threats to protest. There will be only one rule to comply with and fewer loopholes.
The reason that the final rule came in at 25 ft, is that some ponds did not have 50 ft of shore before they ran into obstacles, trees, cliffs, brush, etc, that made it impossible to get 50 ft away from the shoreline.
Mark Bullard's concerns that some courses are closer to shore than others is very valid, but the real answer is, if you are so close to the decibel cutoff at any pond, and if 25 vs 50 ft REALLY puts you over the top, then you are too loud and you really need to make it quieter anyway. If you are running at 94 now, then you have some work to do. The 92 limit is right around the corner. I hope.
Brian Schymik
D14 Director
AWaddle322
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 410
Bill or my new nickname for you is MR. CHEAPbzubee said:
Quite being so hard headed. I do not need an entire rule book ( Ihave atleast 6 of them), I also dont need a big rule book (Vision is just fine), I also don't neeed a computer clogger up with a bunch of down loaded stuff. I don't need to kill a bunch of trees to print off something that I have atleast 6 of (beside would the trees not be better of being used for boats)
What I need is very simple. Somewhere on your website I need a link to rule book update that will fit my current rulebook. I do not mind buying the paper. I do not mind downloading current rules but I am not going to download and print a rule book because 2 pages needs to be changed and I am not going to sit and compare this to that to find out what has changed.
By putting this link there people would be able to spot rule changes and stay current. They way you are doing it no one will be current.
I am not asking to much for a simple link for current rule book updates. It does not have to be fancy. Or we could do it like t has alwaysn been done and just put it in the rostertail as a rule book update.
ALSO ONE LAST COMPLAINT AND I AM DONE. THE ONLINE ROOSTERTSAIL NEEDS TO BE LIKE THE ONE WE RECIEVED IN THE MAIL. I RELIZE THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE SIZE OF IT IT IN WHOLE BUT THERE ARE MUCH BIGGER FILES DOWNLOADED THAN ROOSTERTIALS ON THE INTERNET. AND JUST COME TO THINK OF IT WE USED TO BE ABLE TO DOWNLOAD AND PRINT THE ROOSTERTAIL AS WE RECIEVED THE HARDCOPY. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL OF IT BEING IN ONE PACKAGE LIKE IT HAS BEEN?
I hope that you understand I am not asking for anything to be mailed to me as I do understand the financial part of the IMPBA. All I want is the information that we need to be easily found (not downloading an entire rule book for 1 page).
One more thing it has been done a way for many years and has worked. It was obviosly not going to work for it to be mailed this year but why do we have to change the way everything else (Why cant the rulebook uopdates be in the roostertail?). you now why cant we do it like the rule book says it will be done.
I for one say make new rules and races and news easy to find
Buckshot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 4,109
And this goes for everyone?bzubee said:
Right?
Bill?
I work in the construction industry and have to follow HEAVY OSHA rules and regulations, BUT over the years you learn how to "interpret" the rules to fit around your needs.
So.. That is why you have guys with "phantom" mufflers that aren't doing s*#t but adding an extra expansion chamber on the end of their pipes knowing dam good and well that it is not making the boat quieter.
All in all the muffler rule is a Bad idea and seems to be THE root cause for all of this crap. It appears that everyone is in favor of lowering the sound levels as a whole.
So to get back to how this thread originally started….YES to a set db level with out a muffler requirement.
PERIOD!!
"this horse is dead"
-Buck-
Founding Member of The Outlaw World of Nitro r/c power boating :lol:
T.O.W.N.
Brian Schymik
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 773
Alan, Thank you for the good suggestion.AWaddle322 said:
I will try to make it happen the next time we have a rule update ( or maybe I can do one retroactive)
I am not a great webmaster, and we severed ties with the old one, cause he cost to much. But I will work on getting a link for updates.
Brian
PS, last nite I did update mine, by reading all of the book and comparing the webversion to the book i have. I then printed only the pages I needed and printed them the same size as our rule book with no problem. It took an hour or so though.
The computer will print the pages the right size if you ask it to. It doesn't print two sided pages though.
Last edited by a moderator:
AWaddle322
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 410
Brian, How about supplying with the page # that I need to make current rule book current. i have all updates that have been in roostertail so I guess i am only missing the noise page.Brian Schymik said:
Allen
Last edited by a moderator:
Brian some of you guys seem to still be confused and evidently some of the District Directors are confused. Do you mean you think the boats are checked as they run down the shoreline??? The boats should be checked on the race course not running down the shoreline. By the existing rule - If the meter is put 25' from the shoreline and the min IMPBA course is 50' from the shore and maximum of 150' from the shoreline you will be checking the boats from 75 to 175 feet from the meter based on how the course is laid out and what pond you run on. NOT RIGHT!! The allowed noise level will vary from pond to pond. GUYS it is SOOOOOOOOOOO simple - Forget about how to design mufflers, etc. THE RULE SHOULD STATE - THE BOATS WILL BE CHECKED 50 FEET FROM THE METER. THE METER WILL BE SET UP PERPENDICULAR TO THE COURSE AND SIGHTED AT THE START BUOY. The METER SHALL BE MOUNTED AT THE SHORELINE ON A TRIPOD XFEET ABOVE THE GROUND and THE MAXIMUM Db SHALL NOT EXCEED XXDb AT 50 FEET. Guys what is so hard about this??????? Why is it so confusing???? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! God Help Us See The Light!!!Brian Schymik said:
Rip Holdridge IMPBA # 3899
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe_Knesek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,115
Rip, I'd make one slight change. "A TRIPOD XFEET ABOVE THE WATER". Places like Hagarstown have banks so steep that the meter could be 10 feet higher than others. I'd assume this would change the reading.riph said:
The meter could also be lined up at bouy 1 and measured from the meter to the bouy Figure out what an optimal distance from the bouy to the shore is and make that the constent. This will then force consistancy in the coarse setup.
Lake S.P.O.R.T.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 367
I guess I am going to show some ignorance....or maybe not, I don't know...yet. One thing is for sure, I am confused. Not about the rules but about the equipment currently being raced. In 1989...16 years ago...there were several people from the old Cigar City Model Boat Club (Tampa Fl.) that were using muffled tuned pipes on their boats. In fact one of these boats was an Aeromarine Cat with a .90 engine. I remember it well. It was super fast (always won) and the boat was whisper quiet, I am sure well below 90db and probably around 85. Am I missing something?? I see very few muffled tuned pipes. I see regular pipes with "mufflers" on them. Why have people proven over 15 years ago that a big nitro boat can be super fast and super quiet and yet today in 2005 we are struggling with this noise limit and running "band aid" pipes??? Is there some "taboo thing" with muffled tuned pipes? Are there not enough of them? Tell me that is the case and I will start building the **** things myself. I have seen with my own two eyes and ears how good these things work. So good that I don't understand why they are not in widespread use today. What am I missing??
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 16,198
Nope, no "taboo thing" more like not wanting to take the time to find the right set up unless they're forced to. Like I said in a previous post, quiet doesn't mean slow. Just ask Andy or Al Hobbs who go to Europe almost every year to race in the NAVIGA Championships. The boats must be under 80dB, period. And like I also said earlier how two well known Norway boys came over here a couple seasons ago & put a pretty good spankin' on those loud US boats.Lake S.P.O.R.T. said:
Last edited by a moderator:
piper_chuck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 2,436
People either have to want to change or they have to be told to change.Lake S.P.O.R.T. said:
SayMikey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 12,552
I think we need to ask for help from our european friends,the quietest twin at the nats was from france.piper_chuck said:People either have to want to change or they have to be told to change.Lake S.P.O.R.T. said:
109932[/snapback]
Brian Schymik
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 773
Rip,
Thanks for the vote of confidence?!?!
I am not confused or stupid. Neither are the rest of the Board members. Everyone of your senarios, and all of the other ones posted here have already been discussed/mentioned at previous Board meetings.
You have misread my comments. I really was not commenting on the exact method of the readings. What I said was, if you are close to the limit, you probably already know it. With the many local course variables to consider, you better make sure you are much quieter than 95 at your particular lake so you won't get called too loud at another lake. I also said that the rules are developing. Your suggestions are welcome.
Brian
Thanks for the vote of confidence?!?!
I am not confused or stupid. Neither are the rest of the Board members. Everyone of your senarios, and all of the other ones posted here have already been discussed/mentioned at previous Board meetings.
You have misread my comments. I really was not commenting on the exact method of the readings. What I said was, if you are close to the limit, you probably already know it. With the many local course variables to consider, you better make sure you are much quieter than 95 at your particular lake so you won't get called too loud at another lake. I also said that the rules are developing. Your suggestions are welcome.
Brian
Brian this is what I was talking about:Brian Schymik said:
(The reason that the final rule came in at 25 ft, is that some ponds did not have 50 ft of shore before they ran into obstacles, trees, cliffs, brush, etc, that made it impossible to get 50 ft away from the shoreline.
Mark Bullard's concerns that some courses are closer to shore than others is very valid, but the real answer is, if you are so close to the decibel cutoff at any pond, and if 25 vs 50 ft REALLY puts you over the top, then you are too loud and you really need to make it quieter anyway. If you are running at 94 now, then you have some work to do. The 92 limit is right around the corner. I hope.)
Actually the meter should be at the waterline and measure the racing lane 50" out.
I guess I just don't understand what the real problem is. NAMBA has been running a noise rule of XDb at 50' for years so why do we - IMPBA have to re-invent the wheel.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2002
- Messages
- 4,724
So Rip[ you are going to have someone stand on the shore line and take readings of boats running di dyou forget about the accident up north already? We don't need anyone by the shore line watching a meter. That is another reason for the 25 foot set back. That is what all people should be from the waters edge period. I have seen boaters set up tents almost at the waters edge why they are not thinking at the time of set up a boat can and has come a shore almost anywhere do you really want someone to be in dange like that?
Preston_Hall
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,025
If the masses would have known that they only needed to dangle a piece of silicone off their pipe there never would have been a problem. There never would have been a noise reduction either.
50' measuring distance. 25' of water and 25' of land. I think everybody has a minimum of that. You can split the 50' however you like it.
Brian Schymik
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 773
Preston, this makes sense. But I will warn you that we will hear lots of S?@$ from many people who will say that this is a significantly shorter distance overall than in any previous rule. Consider that the current course has to be 50ft from shore now and the current rule puts the meter 25 ft back. That is minimum 75ft.Preston_Hall said:
Some courses, as already pointed out may be farther...for a total of 175 ft. Now we are considering an absolute total of only 50 ft.
That is at least a 25 ft difference on the closest course.
I am all for this myself. But can it pass the membership??
Brian
PS how do you measure the 25 ft in the water?? Put a buoy there? Have people that are loud drive near it and measure them?? Think practically and it has to be simple so that it will really get done at a race.
Scooter12195
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 261
Isn't the purpose here the effect of the noise on our ears and spectators ears? What we are trying to accomplish is an acceptable noise level at the bank of the pond no matter how far out the course is in the water. If the course is 3 miles out in the ocean and we measure 25 feet from low tide on the beach, then so be it. Measure a set distance from the bank at the start line at ear level for the average person (say 5-6') and if the boats are below said DB at that point, the goal has been reached. Over the years to come, adopt lower DB levels and contestants must either adhere to the limits or not race. All kinds of racing has to adapt to different situations at different tracks, such as NASCAR competitors having to deal with the Carb restrictors at the big tracks. They don't like it for the most part but it's for everybodys good. Hopefully we don't argue and whine our way into a SPEC Muffler rule where everybody has to run the same Silencers bought from the same supplier and drawn from a box at the race. The fact is we are trying to accomplish a certain noise level AT OUR EARS ON THE BANK. The Bank doesn't move and the distance from the waters edge should stay consistant at every venue. They are doing it in Europe with NO ill effects on performance and we can do it too.Brian Schymik said:
Just my 2 cents worth
Scott Norris
Similar threads
